![]() We compared response patterns from our online sample with previous studies that had large samples of participants: Swaminathan et al. The goal of tests such as the MET is to measure musical ability in the absence of any formal training, and to do so objectively and quickly. As a broad phenotype, musical ability incorporates many other aspects of behavior (e.g., expert levels of performance, long-term memory for melodies) that are dependent on learning and practice. In other words, the tests rely on core musical skills, specifically auditory short-term (working) memory and perceptual discrimination. These older tests, as well as more recent tests of musical ability (Asztalos & Csapó, 2014 Fujii & Schlaug, 2013 Law & Zentner, 2012 Peretz et al., 2003, 2013 Ullén et al., 2014 Zentner & Strauss, 2017), all require same–different comparisons of two auditory events that differ in pitch (e.g., melody) or time (e.g., rhythm), or along other dimensions such as timbre and amplitude. Musical aptitude tests, dating back to the early twentieth century (Bentley, 1966 Gordon, 1965 Seashore, 1919 Seashore et al., 1960 Wing, 1962), were designed to identify whether musically untrained individuals (primarily children) are likely to benefit from music lessons, based on the view that people with little natural ability would be unlikely to benefit in this regard. It is designed in the tradition of musical aptitude (i.e., natural musical ability) tests, with two subtests, Melody and Rhythm, both of which require participants to determine, on multiple trials, whether two auditory sequences (a standard followed by a comparison) are identical. The MET is a listening test that has documented reliability and validity (Swaminathan et al., 2021 Wallentin et al., 2010a, 2010b). In the present investigation, we used the platform Gorilla ( Anwyl-Irvine et al., 2020) to create an online version of an objective measure of musical ability-the Musical Ear Test (MET). Finally, online experiments are not limited to the space and time constraints of a laboratory. Fifth, building an online experiment, recruiting participants, and collecting data can be more efficient in terms of time and costs, especially when responses are scored and recorded automatically on the hosting platform. Fourth, participants may feel more comfortable and act more naturally at home than when they come to a laboratory. Third, access to relatively rare target audiences, such as musicians, tends to be easier. Second, Internet samples can be more diverse and representative of the general population in terms of age, gender, and socioeconomic status, particularly when compared to samples comprised solely of college students registered in introductory psychology courses. First, data quality can be similar, in the sense that the findings are similar. ![]() In sum, online administration of the MET proved to be a reliable and valid way to measure musical ability.Īlthough there are legitimate concerns about online testing, such as lack of control over characteristics of the samples and testing contexts (e.g., Birnbaum, 2004 Krantz & Dalal, 2000), online studies have several features that make them equivalent or even superior to in-person testing (e.g., Casler et al., 2013 Dandurand et al., 2008 Gosling et al., 2004). ![]() ![]() For the final sample ( N = 608), findings were similar to those from in-person testing in many respects: (1) the internal reliability of the MET was maintained, (2) construct validity was confirmed by strong associations with Gold-MSI scores, (3) correlations with other measures (e.g., openness to experience, cognitive ability, mind-wandering) were as predicted, (4) mean levels of performance were similar for individuals with no music training, and (5) musical sophistication was a better predictor of performance on the Melody than on the Rhythm subtest. Approximately 20% of the participants were excluded for incomplete responding or failing to finish the testing session. The testing session also included the Goldsmiths Musical Sophistication Index (Gold-MSI), a test of general cognitive ability, and self-report questionnaires that measured basic demographics (age, education, gender), mind-wandering, and personality. Both subtests had 52 trials, each of which required participants to determine whether standard and comparison auditory sequences were identical. A sample of 754 participants was tested with an online version of the Musical Ear Test (MET), which had Melody and Rhythm subtests. We sought to determine whether an objective test of musical ability could be successfully administered online.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |